there ought to be a rough balance between china and japan. how about drawing japan a bit bigger, then splitting the japanese homeland into three island territories called honshu, hokkaido and kyushu (as the asia map has done) and allocating karafuto (the southern half of sakhalin island – this currently appears as a peninsula, not an island) to the japanese empire? the japanese empire continent will then have six territories (honshu, hokkaido, kyushu, korea, taiwan and karafuto) and border two continents (china and russia) instead of only one.

the trading companies are an original twist to gameplay that is in keeping with the times. the resultant asymmetry lets europe project its power in a limited way. this is a good alternative (or addition) to the capital auto-deploy.

i think africa has far too many territories. someone holding the whole of africa will receive more bonuses than for holding any other continent, which is the opposite of reality. at its simplest, africa could be drawn visually smaller and with only four territories: british africa, german africa, french africa and morocco (with egypt & sudan and ottoman tripoli given to the middle east continent). with only four territories on the african continent, a player wouldn't be disadvantaged by the lopsidedness that mibi mentions if he had three african colonial territories from the drop (in fact, it could work in his favour because he'd be only one away from the africa bonus). the very detailed africa that we have at the moment has the potential to be the core of a “scramble for africa” map with new world gameplay.

if we decide not to shrink africa as above, then liberia and somaliland won't be missed if they disappear: there is no influence from the usa and italy respectively to give relevance to their existence. tripoli was an ottoman colony. so was egypt (nominally), though great britain was in control. i'm not sure about a good way to join tripoli to the ottoman empire without egypt, so maybe it just has to be, like the portuguese colonies, orphaned. an alternative is, as mentioned above, to make egypt & sudan and ottoman tripoli part of the middle east continent.

cairnswk wrote:Oaktown...sorry if i have come in late on this one....great looking map....but where are the Dutch.Are you not going to have Indonesia as being Dutch and some parts of Africa also....or is that after 1910???

cairns makes a very good point. the netherlands was one of the most influential nations in 1910 and two dutch empire territories are already on the board (sumatra and java) without the colonial power being there. a bit of france and germany can be cannibalised to make the netherlands bigger than real size.

iceland looks a bit out of place without its mother country, denmark, although putting in denmark would make that part of europe look very cramped.

it is a pity that europe isn't bigger on the map because many of the most significant territorial changes took place in europe. for example, a bigger europe could show the four major constituent states of germany (prussia, bavaria, wuerttemberg and saxony), the four countries of the united kingdom (including the whole of the island of ireland) and the empire of austria and kingdom of hungary as separate territories rather than a combined one; having said that, perhaps this particular concept best fits a world war one europe map.

I think play should be unshifted from Europe and spread out a little more. Russia had a really good empire going, as did China and Japan. Sure, Europe had MORE colonies, but being realistic is kinda killing the gameplay for me.

thanks to everyone for their continued feedback on this map even though I've been away... i hope to get cracking on it now that I have some free time.

There were many, many comments, some of which I have addressed in this version, such as:• spelling• adding the Dutch• expanding the Japanese empire to include Sakhalin, which now brings up the value of the region• making Australia independent

Click image to enlarge.

The to-do list is long... top items include making Europe a bit bigger to fit everything, and possibly dropping a territory or two from Africa. However, I like the idea of Africa being big and hard to hold - which it is and was. If anything I'd like to make Africa more complex, but not make the bonus any bigger... I've already dropped its bonus since the last version.

And yes, I will rethink the mountain graphics. I'll either make the rest of the map fit those mountains, or redo them in a different style. Consider them place-holders for now.

Question: should Ireland have its own territory? And if it does, do I have to give territories to Wales and Scotland? I'd like to just add ireland only.

Since the LA map is going nowhere, I'm going to get some serious work done on this project. Here's what i've done...

Made Europe ever so slightly larger to better fit army circles. I dropped circles in and everything is fine, but this is the large map so I may have to tinker further.

Desaturated everything to get away from the parchment look. I know, I know, there goes Oaktown again not using color, It's the 20th century, after all, and we're using paper and ink and one-color printing. Things are indeed looking more grey, which I think fits the theme and era of the map, and I plan to work the individual graphic elements - boats, mountains, additional landforms which I'll add later - further into this look. I've played with the mountains a bit and I already like them better sans-color, but I'll push them to look more hand-drawn.

Love the map, not so much the newer grayer draft. The parchment-style was easier on the eyes.

Regarding the Irish Question, I say don't add Ireland. It doesn't really add to gameplay and it's not historically helpful. Ireland wasn't independent until after WWI; the system you have for other colonies would make some sense, but as I assume you'd have an attack route from Britain, the bombardment would be pointless. Leave it out.

Ruben Cassar wrote:Excuse my ignorance but shouldn't what you call French Western Africa have a French flag and Australia have a British flag?

it was pointed out to me that by this time Australia was independent of England or something. I don't understand the whole commonwealth thing, so I was bowing to the word of the Aussies and Brits around here.

French W. Africa could indeed have a french flag now that we have added the trading companies. Before when it was direct bombardments of colonies it wouldn't work because France can actually attack French West Africa directly - you can't have it both ways. Now I guess it could, though most players would probably attack directly rather than hit a neutral and bombard. But who knows - may as well give that option.

I agree that the grey is a bit blah. I'll see if I can't come up with something in between. I think it's not the grey I dislike so much as the what it has done to the color on the region borders.

As for the sig, well, I wanted to get it out of the way. Trouble is the style of the sig doesn't look so hot on this map... I may need a sig redux, since I already dumped the old sig on High Seas anyway.

the people have spoken, we're bringing back the color. It's still darker than the earlier versions, but nothing like the grey.

Only change to gameplay here is the addition of the french flag in French West Africa. If anybody every uses it I'd be shocked, but you never know - I finally found a use for the bombardments in Berlin.

Also stuck in the rest of the army circles.

I'd love more gameplay feedback - I'm at the point where i don't know if people are pleased or just don't care.

Hm, the game play of this map is interesting, especially the lay out of the continents. We have the resident "Waste Land Continents" (Europe and Russian Empire) at the top of the map, with the more friendly and smaller areas located towards the middle and bottom. Of course though Europe will get play, due to the connection strategic advantage it holds in regards to the Trading Companies and Colonies.

All your bonus values seem spot on...as I figured.

Australia and then into S.E. Asia look like great starting positions if you happen to have some control in Europe. But if you don't, China and Japan along with the Middle East seem to be the best bets...

Hm, it looks like the game play is well thought out. I can see various scenarios working, depending on your initial placement.

Few minor things:

Does Italy have a route to Austria-Hungary? Maybe nudge the mountains up or down, depending on if the answer is yes or no.

Are we supposed to see territory division lines beneath the tree roots? I mean, mountains? I.E. Stavropol-Perm-Siberia and Amur, etc.

Maybe alter South Africa's color a little bit, just so the text of "S. Africa" isn't so light in the ocean.

You are going to do something still with the flags, yes? They feel...hm...too shiny and new compared to the other style of graphics on the map. Maybe more dull colors...or something to to keep in style with the...erm...style.

Lastly, are we playing hide and go seek with your signature? Or maybe it just takes time to move it to its final resting place in the upper right.

oaktown wrote:the people have spoken, we're bringing back the color. It's still darker than the earlier versions, but nothing like the grey.

Did you remove the darker earlier version because I can't find it? I think the border colours were easier to read on that one. I have to strain my eyes a bit to see the division between some of the different regions on this one.

yeah, I as going to go around and make the coastlines look like coastlines - australia and scandinavia are good examples of coastlines I've already worked on - but I totally forgot. Other things came first this weekend. time to start the to do list..